As Built But For Schedule Delay Analysis

Richard J. Long, P.E.
Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc.
L ONG INTERNATIONAL
Long International, Inc. • 5265 Skytrail Drive • Littleton, Colorado 80123-1566 USA • Telephone: (303) 972-2443 • Fax: (303) 200-7180 • www.long-intl.com
As-Built But-For Schedule Delay Analysis
Richard J. Long, P.E.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. WHY THE APPLICATION OF THE ABBF SCHEDULE DELAY
ANALYSIS METHOD IS APPROPRIATE ..................................................................................... 4
3. THE AS-BUILT CALCULATION SCHEDULE............................................................................. 8
4. QUANTIFICATION OF DELAYS ................................................................................................. 13
5. INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF REMOVING DELAYS FROM
THE AS-BUILT CALCULATION SCHEDULE........................................................................... 15
6. OVERCOMING CRITICISM OF THE ABBF SCHEDULE DELAY
ANALYSIS METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 20
List of Figures
Figure 1 As-Built But-For Schedule Analysis Methodology .................................................................. 9
Figure 2 Critical Path at the Beginning of a Window May be Different from the As-Built
Critical Path at the End of a Window ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Logic Relationships at the Start of a Window May Change During the Window .................. 12
Figure 4 Example of an Owner-Caused Delay Quantified by a Duration
Variance Calculation ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 Owner-Caused Delays Were Not on the Critical Path ............................................................ 16
Figure 6 Owner-Caused Delays Were Fully Concurrent with Contractor-Caused Delays .................... 17
Figure 7 Owner-Caused Delays Were Partially Concurrent with Contractor-Caused Delays............... 18
Figure 8 Net Overall Compensable Delay for All Windows (Conceptual) ........................................... 19
Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. i

1. INTRODUCTION
An As-Built But-For Schedule Delay Analysis1 (ABBF) is a retrospective CPM schedule delay
analysis technique that determines the earliest date that the required mechanical completion
activity, project completion activity, or various milestone activities could have been achieved but-
for the owner-caused compensable delays that occurred during the project.2 The amount of owner-
caused delay determined from the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis quantifies the contractor’s
entitlement to receive compensable delay damages. Similarly, the analysis could determine the
earliest date that the various completion activities could have been achieved but-for the contractor-
caused noncompensable delays that occurred during the project.
While the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis can be calculated using the entire period of the project
as one as-built schedule,3 the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis can also be performed in windows
or periods of time, where the as-built schedule and its then current critical path can be analyzed
separately for each window or period, and cumulatively for the project.4
The ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is calculated using the actual start and finish dates and actual
work sequences of activities in the as-built schedule to determine if delay to the as-built critical
path5 during the analysis period has occurred. The as-built critical path during each schedule
window may be different from the planned critical path at the start of each schedule window, due
to delays, scope changes, etc., that have occurred during the schedule window. Therefore, the
ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis focuses on responsibility for delays that affected the dynamic
nature of the as-built critical path of the schedule window rather than delays that affected the
planned critical path at the beginning of the schedule window.
In contrast, the Time Impact Analysis (TIA) or the Update Impact Analysis (UIA) adds impacts to
the planned schedule to measure any potential delay. The TIA is calculated on schedules which
are statused up through the day before each impact first occurred. The UIA is calculated on
schedules which are statused at the beginning of a specific window or impact period, typically the
monthly schedule updates prepared during the project. Often, a schedule analyst performs a TIA
or UIA for the calculation of an extension of time. However, the analyst may incorrectly conclude
that the total time extension entitlement or total actual delay is compensable. This conclusion may
1
Sometimes this methodology is called a Collapsed As-Built Schedule Analysis.
2
Unless specified otherwise in the contract, concurrent contractor-caused delays and other excusable delays such
as force-majeure delays, are normally noncompensable delays and, therefore, must be considered in an analysis
to determine how much of the overall delay is compensable. By analyzing both compensable and
noncompensable delays in the as-built schedule, the analyst can determine if they are on the same or concurrent
critical path and also would have delayed the project. If compensable and noncompensable delays are
concurrent, and unless otherwise specified in the contract, neither the owner nor the contractor is entitled to
delay damages.
3
See AACE International’s Recommended Practice 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis, MIP 3.8, April 25, 2011.
4
Id., MIP 3.9.
5
See Section 3 herein for a discussion of the calculation of the as-built critical path.
Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 1

be incorrect if the analyst fails to address concurrent delays in the as-built schedule, or if the time
extension is longer than the actual delay that occurred as the result of acceleration or other delay
mitigation.6 The ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis addresses concurrent delays, and the net period
of owner-caused delay may be compensable after concurrency of contractor-caused and other
excusable delays are addressed.7 Therefore, to avoid an incorrect conclusion, a TIA or UIA can be
used to calculate the time extension to which the contractor is entitled as a result of owner-caused
and other excusable delays, and the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis can also be used to determine
the compensable delay days to which the contractor is entitled as a result of owner-caused delays.
The ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is typically more difficult to perform than the TIA or UIA
because most CPM software programs regard as-built dates as historical events fixed in time. As a
result, most CPM software programs will not permit but-for analysis models to be run on schedules
containing actual dates. Consequently, the as-built schedule must be converted to an as-planned
format containing “planned” dates that correspond to the as-built schedule but are driven by logic
and activity durations. This conversion step is used to create an As-Built Calculation Schedule that
can collapse as delays are removed.8
The ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is performed by first removing owner-caused delays from the
As-Built Calculation Schedule and recalculating the project completion date. Contractor-caused
(noncompensable) and excusable/noncompensable delays are left in the As-Built Calculation
Schedule. The As-Built Calculation Schedule with owner-caused delays removed is used to
determine the compensable time period between the actual project completion date and the as-built
but-for completion date.
Next, contractor-caused delays are removed from the original As-Built Calculation Schedule and
the project completion date is recalculated. Owner-caused (compensable) and excusable/
noncompensable delays are left in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. The ABBF Schedule Delay
Analysis that removes contractor-caused delays is used to determine the time period between the
actual completion date and the as-built but-for completion date for assessment of liquidated
damages by the owner.9
The conclusions derived from the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis are described in more detail in
Section 5 of this article.
6
Contractor-caused problems may have also disrupted the contractor’s work and delayed the critical path of
the project.
7
Owner-caused delays may not be compensable if the contract contains a “no damage for delay” clause.
8
See Section 3 for a more-detailed explanation of the As-Built Calculation Schedule.
9
The TIA and UIA can also be used to determine the owner’s entitlement to liquidated damages if the actual
completion date is later than the impacted completion date; the difference being the number of days to which
liquidated damages can be applied.

The following information is provided in this article:
 Why the application of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis methodology is

appropriate;
 The As-Built Calculation Schedule;
 Quantification of delays;
 Interpreting the results of removing delays from the As-Built Calculation
Schedule; and
 Overcoming criticisms of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis Method.

2. WHY THE APPLICATION OF THE ABBF SCHEDULE DELAY ANALYSIS
METHOD IS APPROPRIATE
The ABBF Schedule Analysis is commonly used in the construction industry.10 It has been
said that:
The as-built but-for method is popular with both developers and contractors
because, unlike the as-planned impacted method, it is based on consideration of the
actual build times and can be used for determining not only the period of excusable
delay, but also the period over which loss and expense may have been suffered.11
The same industry reference describes the cause-effect relationship derived from the use of the
ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis method:
The effect of the causal event on the key dates and completion date is then the
difference between the date calculated before the event was subtracted, and that
calculated after the event was subtracted.12
The justification for the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is that it focuses on what was actually
critical over the life of the project:13
[O]ne of the arguments frequently encountered is the issue of hindsight pricing of

delays, as opposed to current or contemporaneous pricing of delays. We might
describe this as the need to answer a requirement or argument for the use of the but
for test in the evaluation process. This should be satisfied if delays are evaluated
update by update both at the beginning and end of updates, not only to identify
where the critical path is located at the inception of the period but also to locate the
critical path during the period and to assure that the critical path was not
10
See, for example, Wickwire, Jon M., Thomas J. Driscoll, Stephen B. Hurlbut and Scott B. Hillman, Construction
Scheduling: Preparation, Liability and Claims, 2nd Edition, Aspen Law & Business, New York, 2003, Section
9.08[I] ‘But-For’ Test for Extended Duration Claims, pp. 372-374, and Section 9.06[B] But For
Analysis/Collapsed As-Built, pp. 272-273; also see Pickavance, Keith, Delay and Disruption in Construction
Contracts, 3rd ed., T&F Informa (UK) Ltd, London, 2005, p. 564, paragraph 14.292; “The Society of
Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol,” Oxford, October 2002, Section 4.7, p.47; Keane, P.J. and A.F.
Caletka, Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, Section 4.2.4, pp. 140-150;
“Forensic Schedule Analysis,” AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Method Implementation
Protocol 3.9: Modeled, Subtractive, Multiple-Base Schedule Analysis,” April 25, 2011. Long International has
used its As-Built But-For Schedule Analysis methodology on numerous retrospective delay analyses as experts in
arbitrations and litigations regarding projects in many counties, including Argentina, Canada, England,
Indonesia, The Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, and Venezuela. Long
International’s As-Built But-For Schedule Delay Analysis methodology is based on MIP 3.9.
11
See Pickavance, p. 566, paragraph 14.306.
12
See Pickavance, p. 564, paragraph 14.293.
13
See Wickwire, et. al., Section 9.10 Safeguards for Establishing Delay Quantum Baselines, pp. 413-414.

overtaken by other delays (or concurrent with other critical path delays) during the
month in question.14
It is a common misconception in the construction industry that if the contractor is entitled to an

extension of time, then it is also automatically entitled to be compensated for the additional time
that it has taken to complete the contract.15 It is usually not.
An additive delay analysis, such as the TIA or UIA, by itself does not provide an answer to the
issue of compensable delay. If a contractor incurs additional costs that are caused by both owner
delay and concurrent contractor delay, then the contractor should only recover compensation to the
extent it is able to separately identify the additional costs that were only caused by the owner delay.
If it would have incurred the additional costs in any event as a result of concurrent contractor-
caused delays, the contractor will not be entitled to recover those additional costs unless provided
otherwise in the contract.16 Therefore, the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is often performed to
address the issue of compensable delay net of concurrent contractor-caused delay on the as-built
schedule, which the TIA and UIA do not analyze properly.
AACE International also acknowledges that an entitlement to an extension of time does not
provide the contractor with a right to delay compensation:
Note that the terms, compensable, excusable and non-excusable, in current industry
usage, are from the viewpoint of the contractor. That is, a delay that is deemed
compensable is compensable to the contractor, but non-excusable to the owner.
Conversely, a non-excusable delay is a compensable delay to the owner since it
results in the collection of liquidated/stipulated damages.17
A neutral perspective on the usage of the terms often aids understanding of the
parity and symmetry of the concepts. Thus entitlement to compensability, whether
14
Id.
15
See “The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol,” Oxford, October 2002, paragraph 1.6.3,
page 18, which states, “It is a common misconception in the construction industry that if the Contractor is
entitled to an EOT, then it is also automatically entitled to be compensated for the additional time that it has
taken to complete the contract. Under the common standard forms of contract, the Contractor is nearly always
required to claim its entitlement to an EOT under one provision of the contract and its claim to compensation for
that prolongation under another provision. There is thus no absolute linkage between entitlement to an EOT and
the entitlement to compensation for the additional time spent on completing the contract.” Also see Wickwire,
et. al., Section 9.08[G]1, pp. 350-355, Key Issues Involving Concurrent Delay and Extended Duration Claims,
and Proof for Time Extensions Versus Proof for Compensable Delay.
16
See “The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol,” Oxford, October 2002, Core Principles
Related to Delay and Disruption, item 10, page 7, and Guidance Section 1.10.1 and 1.10.4.
17
This assumes that the contract includes an assessment of liquidated damages for the delayed completion of work
by the contractor. In the absence of liquidated damages, the owner is often entitled to compensation for its
actual damages.

it applies to the contractor or the owner, requires that the party seeking
compensation show a lack of concurrency if concurrency is alleged by the other
party. But for entitlement to excusability without compensation, whether it applies
to the contractor or the owner, it only requires that the party seeking excusability
show that a delay by the other party impacted the critical path.
Based on the symmetry of the concept, one can say that entitlement to a time
extension does not automatically entitle the contractor to delay compensation. In
addition to showing that an owner-delay impacted the critical path, the contractor
would have to show the absence of concurrent delays caused by a contractor-delay
or a force majeure delay in order to be entitled to compensation. [Emphasis added.]
A contractor delay concurrent with many owner delays would negate the
contractor’s entitlement to delay compensation. Similarly, one owner delay
concurrent with many contractor delays would negate the owner’s entitlement to
delay compensation, including liquidated/stipulated damages. While in such
extreme cases the rule seems draconian, it is a symmetrical rule that applies to both
the owner and the contractor and hence ultimately equitable.18
Thus, the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis quantifies the net effect, i.e., the contractor’s entitlement to
extended time-related costs, of the absence of certain noncompensable delays to the as-built critical
path. For example, in Canon Construction Corporation, the ASBCA provided a clear and logical
description of how the but-for schedule can be utilized in the proof of extended duration claims:
A proper determination of this appeal required at the outset that the Board
determine the date, as precisely as possible, upon which the appellant would have
completed the contract work but for delays which might have been due either to
Government fault or the performance of changed work. The next determination
must be the actual date of the completion of the work. The difference between the
two dates establishes the extended period of performance for which appellant
would be entitled to be paid for extended fixed overhead costs.19
Often, the CPM schedule that is developed by the contractor for a complex project contains
thousands of activities and multiple critical and near critical paths that need to be examined for
delays. Concurrent owner-caused delays and contractor-caused delays to the actual sequence of
the contractor’s work activities also need to be examined before the contractor’s entitlement to
delay compensation can be determined. Thus, the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is an
appropriate methodology for this retrospective delay analysis on a complex CPM schedule. Any
18
See AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis, April 25, 2011,
Section 4.1.C, pp. 100-101.
19
Canon Construction Corporation, ASBCA No. 16142, 72-1 BCA (CCH) ¶ 9,404 (1972).

other form of as-planned vs. as-built schedule analysis comparison to determine compensable
delay entitlement may not properly deal with concurrent delay and float issues in a sufficiently
detailed manner to yield reliable results.

3. THE AS-BUILT CALCULATION SCHEDULE
Figure 1 illustrates the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis methodology. First, a model of the as-built
schedule, which is called the As-Built Calculation Schedule, is developed with schedule logic and
activity durations that calculate the same start and finish dates as the as-built dates in the as-built
schedule. However, these dates are determined by the as-built logic and actual activity durations
rather than the locked-in actual start and finish dates of the as-built schedule. The owner-caused
and contractor-caused delays are then identified in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. The owner-
caused delays are removed from the As-Built Calculation Schedule, leaving the contractor-caused
delays and other excusable but noncompensable delays in the As-Built Calculation Schedule. In
this example, the calculated project completion date collapses to an earlier completion date by only
10-work days because other delays that were caused by the contractor would prevent the project
from being completed any earlier than a reduced duration of 10-work days. Therefore, the owner’s
responsibility for compensable delay is 10-work days, although the sum of the periods of actual
delay was longer, because of delays that were in the as-built schedule for which the owner is
not responsible.

Figure 1
As-Built But-For Schedule Analysis Methodology

An analysis that only focuses on critical path work at the beginning of the window risks ignoring
the real delay to Mechanical Completion, and ultimately to Project Completion.20 For example,
Figure 2 shows an excerpt from a schedule in which piping activities are depicted that were on the
critical path to Mechanical Completion at the start of the window. However, because of a
procurement delay and to the equipment activities during the analysis window, the equipment
activities became the as-built critical path of the project at the end of the analysis window. If the
analyst had only analyzed the delays to the planned critical path at the start of the analysis period,
an incorrect conclusion as to the cause of critical path delays would have been made.
Figure 2
Critical Path at the Beginning of a Window May be Different from
the As-Built Critical Path at the End of a Window
20
The overall delay analysis is based on delay to Final Acceptance.

The purpose of the As-Built Calculation Schedule is intrinsic to a CPM schedule model. If the
schedule dates were based on fixed as-built dates, the effect of removal of delays could not be
determined. However, if delays to activity relationships and durations are removed from the As-
Built Calculation Schedule, whose dates are based on actual activity durations and logic, the
schedule could then be recalculated to determine when the Project Completion date could have
been achieved “but-for” the owner-caused delays that were removed from the As-Built
Calculation Schedule.
To develop the As-Built Calculation Schedules for each window, an examination for out-of-
sequence work should be made of the logical relationships in the statused schedules that depicted
the actual manner in which the work was accomplished during each window. Often, the actual
sequence of work that was examined at the end of the window was different from the
contractor’s planned sequence of work at the beginning of the window. Therefore, the logical
relationships between the schedule activities in the as-built schedule at the end of a window are
different from the planned logical relationships between the schedule activities at the beginning
of the window.
As a hypothetical example, as shown in the planned sequence of work in Figure 3, the erection of
all pipe spools on a project may have been planned to start on the next day after the finish of
prefabrication of all pipe spools needed for the Grade Level, Level 1, and the Top of Structure
level. However, for various reasons, the contractor may have started the erection of pipe spools
well before all pipe had been prefabricated into pipe spools. Therefore, rather than a finish-to-
start (F-S) relationship between the completion of all pipe spools and the erection of all pipe
spools as depicted in the planned sequence of work at the start of the window, the erection of
pipe spools on each level was actually performed with a finish-to-start relationship after the
prefabrication of pipe spools on the grade level was completed. The erection of the pipe spools
on the other two levels actually commenced when the pipe was fabricated for those levels such
that a FF-10 relationship was required from the completion of the pipe fabrication on each level
to the completion of the Erection of All Pipe Spools activity. This change is shown in the as-
built sequence of work in Figure 3. If the actual sequence of work indicates that a different
logical relationship model between the activities is warranted, the analyst would adjust the
schedule logic in the As-Built Calculation Schedule to represent the as-built conditions.

Figure 3
Logic Relationships at the Start of a Window May Change During the Window

4. QUANTIFICATION OF DELAYS
In using the As-Built But-For Schedule Delay Analysis, the durations of owner-caused delays are
quantified to model their effect by removing them from the As-Built Calculation Schedule. Actual
delays in the As-Built Calculation Schedule are quantified from the comparison of the planned and
actual activity durations and relationship lag durations, as measured by the activity data at the end
of the window and the planned activity durations and relationship lags at the beginning of the
window. These duration and lag variances are then used to model the effect of the delays by
removing the quantified delays from the As-Built Calculation Schedule for each window.21
Figure 4 provides a graphic explanation of how an owner-caused delay is removed from the As-
Built Calculation Schedule to model the effect of an owner-caused duration delay that was
quantified by a duration variance calculation. In this case, a 10-work day owner-caused delay and
a 5-work day contractor-caused delay were identified in the window by comparing the original and
actual activity durations during the window. An As-Built Calculation Schedule was prepared to
model the owner-caused and contractor-caused delays. If the 10-work day owner-caused delay is
then removed from the schedule network, the Completion of Work milestone collapses to a date
which is only 5 work days beyond the original Completion of Work date because the 5-work day
contractor-caused delay becomes the remaining driving critical path delay. Therefore, the
contractor is only entitled to a 5-work day compensable delay.
21
Either a Global vs. Stepped Removal of Delays can be used, depending on the detail needed for the analysis.

Figure 4
Example of an Owner-Caused Delay Quantified by a Duration Variance Calculation

5. INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF REMOVING DELAYS FROM THE AS-
BUILT CALCULATION SCHEDULE
By removing delays that were caused by the owner from the activity durations and from the
activity lag relationship durations, the As-Built Calculation Schedule for each schedule window
may or may not collapse to simulate the effect of the removal of delays on the various completion
date(s) being examined.
If the As-Built Calculation Schedule completion date collapses to an earlier completion date after
the owner-caused delays are removed, the net duration of the schedule collapse is the amount of
compensable delay days for which the owner may be responsible. These delays may have caused
increases to the contractor’s home office overhead costs, and/or the contractor’s and its
subcontractors’ field office overhead costs.22
If the As-Built Calculation Schedule collapses to the projected completion date at the start of the
schedule window after the owner-caused delays are removed, the total amount of delay in that
window was solely caused by the owner and may be compensable because there were no
concurrent delays to the critical path that were caused by the contractor.
If the As-Built Calculation Schedule does not collapse at all, or only collapses partially (i.e., not to
the original projected completion date at the start of the window), the owner-caused delays that
were removed were either:
a. Not on the critical path and, therefore, the owner-caused delay would not have
affected the completion date(s), as shown by Figure 5. In this case, the 5-
work day owner-caused delay affected Activity C, which still had 10 work
days of available float after the delay occurred because the Activity E and
Activity D were the actual critical path to the Completion of Work; or
22
Actual time-related cost increases would still need to be demonstrated with evidence to prove that the contractor
or its subcontractors actually incurred compensable delay damages.

Figure 5
Owner-Caused Delays Were Not on the Critical Path
b. Concurrent with contractor-caused delays or other noncompensable but

excusable delays that were also on the as-built critical path which prevented
the schedule completion date from collapsing to the original projected
completion date at the start of the window, as shown by Figure 6. In this
example, the 5-work day owner-caused delay and the 5-work day contractor-
caused delay affected two parallel activity paths, were independent delays,
and both delays would have extended the completion of the project.
Therefore, because of the contractor-caused delay being fully concurrent with
the owner-caused delay, the completion date(s) would not have occurred any
earlier if the owner-caused delays had not occurred; or

Figure 6
Owner-Caused Delays Were
Fully Concurrent with Contractor-Caused Delays
c. Concurrent in part, but not for the entire owner-caused delay period, with
contractor-caused delays or other noncompensable but excusable delays that
were also on the as-built critical path which prevented the scheduled
Completion of Work date from totally collapsing to the original projected
Completion of Work date at the start of the window, as shown by Figure 7. In
this example, a 5-work day owner-caused delay occurred on a parallel activity
path (Activity A, B and C) to Activity E, which experienced a 3-work day
contractor-caused delay. Removal of the 5-work day owner-caused delay
would only allow the schedule to collapse by 2 work days because of the
parallel contractor-caused delay. Therefore, because of the contractor-caused
delay being partially concurrent with the owner-caused delay, the Completion
of Work date(s) would have occurred earlier if the owner-caused delay had
not occurred only to the extent that the owner-caused delays were not
concurrent with the contractor-caused delays.

Figure 7
Owner-Caused Delays Were
Partially Concurrent with Contractor-Caused Delays
Therefore, delay compensation would only be applicable for the number of days that the As-Built
Calculation Schedule did collapse in each window after the owner-caused delays are removed.
The net overall compensable delay is determined by adding the cumulative number of
compensable delay days derived from the as-built but-for calculations in each window, as shown
conceptually in Figure 8.

Figure 8
Net Overall Compensable Delay for All Windows
(Conceptual)

6. OVERCOMING CRITICISM OF THE ABBF SCHEDULE DELAY ANALYSIS
METHOD
Notwithstanding the inclusion by AACE International in its Recommended Practice R29-03, the
ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis method has been criticized by some commentators. In the
following paragraphs, the debate regarding this form of analysis is considered and an explanation
is provided as to how a properly prepared ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis would take into account
and address those concerns.
The primary concern is in connection with the alleged subjectivity that may occur in creating the
As-Built Calculation Schedule.23 To avoid subjectivity in its development of the As-Built
Calculation Schedules, the analyst should apply consistent rules for the establishment of the as-
built logic in each window. These rules should be applied before any knowledge is obtained as to
what activities have been delayed, when the delays occurred, and which party may be responsible
for those delays. These rules should also identify driving predecessor logic based on the
contractor’s planned logic and the actual timing of completion of predecessor activities, and not
based on what the analyst believes may have been the driving predecessor logic.
Some analysts may argue that the application of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis method is not
forward looking, chronological, and cumulative. However, comments of this nature are often
based on the premise that the analysis is performed using only one as-built schedule window that
comprises the entire duration of the project. That is not the case in the windows application of this
method, as described in AACE International’s 29R-03, MIP 3.9. Application of the method on a
windows basis considers the dynamic nature of the critical path as the work moves forward in each
window. The results are tallied on a cumulative basis if the effects of a delay occur in more than
one window. Thus, the analysis is focused on the impacting events that affect the as-built critical
path throughout the project, and cumulatively for the project.
Others may contend that an after-the-fact approach, such as an ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis,
may fail to address the need to consider time extensions on a real time basis. However, time
extensions for owner-caused delays such as Change Orders and other events for which the Owner
may be responsible can be separately analyzed using the TIA or UIA methods. The application of
the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis methodology is solely for the purpose of calculating the
contractor’s entitlement to compensable delay, which is different from the contractor’s entitlement
to a time extension, and perhaps the owner’s entitlement to liquidated damages.
Likewise, commentators have noted that the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis assumes that the
project would have to be built the exact same way if the various project delays had not arisen, and
23
See Wickwire, Jon M., Thomas J. Driscoll, Stephen B. Hurlbut and Scott B. Hillman, Construction Scheduling:
Preparation, Liability and Claims, 2nd Edition, Aspen Law & Business, New York, 2003, Section 9.06[B] But
For Analysis/Collapsed As-Built.

the contractor made no attempt to mitigate the effect of delays.24 This ABBF Schedule Delay
Analysis assumption is not unlike the assumption in a TIA or UIA, wherein it is assumed that the
contractor would design and build the remaining activities in the project schedule, after the impact
is inserted, in the same exact sequence that it planned before experiencing changes in its scope of
work or other impacting events that affect the schedule. Models by their nature keep certain
parameters the same and predict results by modeling the effect of changes to other parameters.
The TIA, UIA, and ABBF Schedule Delay Analyses are modeled analyses and maintain certain
parameters and evaluate the result based on changing other parameters. One can always second
guess what could have been done had a delay not occurred. The ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis
models what was actually done, but without the owner-caused delays.
Certain practitioners of this technique have performed the analysis by identifying and
quantifying only owner-caused delays. The underlying premise being that the contractor is, by
definition, then responsible for the balance of the extended duration experienced by a particular
activity. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks the fact that, in many instances, extended
durations that superficially appear to result from contractor delays are actually “pacing delays”
that were a direct result of owner-caused delays and impacts. Extensive relevant construction
experience is, therefore, required to accurately adjust activity durations that appear to be
contractor delays but are really the direct result of extended durations that were caused by the
owner. Contractors will often temporarily divert resources to other job activities in an effort to
avoid or minimize force reductions, thereby prolonging the completion of delayed work.
Therefore, determining the duration of activity delay by simply comparing planned and actual
performance is inappropriate. An argument may be made that these pacing delays would not
have occurred if owner delays had not occurred.25 If the analyst found evidence that the
contractor deliberately slowed down its work on activity(s)26 which were delayed concurrently
with owner-caused delays to another activity(s), then the analyst should consider the possibility
that those activities were “pacing delays.” If both owner- and contractor-caused delays are
properly identified, this methodology has considerable merit.
Another question is whether work activities were performed continuously between the actual start
date for an activity and the actual finish date for an activity, or in fact the work may not have been
performed continuously.27 The application of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis method should
compare the planned vs. actual duration of activities as well as the lag variance between activities.
The variances in overall activity durations and lag durations should then be examined for all
potential causes of delay that may have been caused by the owner’s delays. Any remaining
24
See Zack, James G., “But-For Schedules-Analysis and Defense,” AACE International Transactions, 1999,
CDR.04.1.
25
CDR.04.1.
26
In such cases, the contractor should notify the owner of its intent to deliberately slow down work.
27
CDR.04.1.

activity variances are then examined for documentation evidencing pacing delays. If the evidence
exists regarding deliberate pacing, those delays are also allocated to the owner. The project record
should also be examined for evidence of potential contractor-caused delays to the activities on the
critical and near critical paths. By using this comprehensive approach, the analyst is able to assign
delays for which both the owner is responsible and delays for which the contractor is responsible.
If the contractor did not perform the work continuously, and all owner-caused delays are allocated,
the additional delay durations are the contractor’s responsibility, whether the work on the activity
was performed continuously or not.
It is also incumbent on the analyst to verify the accuracy of the as-built dates for the schedule
activities.28 If certain dates are found to be inaccurate, the analyst should correct those dates in the
as-built schedule and provide documentation to support the changed dates.
Another common misuse of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis is the arbitrary extraction of
delays from the As-Built Calculation Schedule. Furthermore, the delay extraction process can be
inappropriately manipulated to cover up the effect of the claimant’s delays. These deficiencies can
usually be discovered and corrected, however, by running several iterations of the ABBF Schedule
Delay Analysis, extracting owner-caused and contractor-cawed delays separately and jointly, to
more accurately evaluate the impact of each party’s delays to the project completion schedule.
Nevertheless, because this technique considers multiple paths in the analysis of schedule delay, it is
popular with both owners and contractors in their defense against, and in pursuit of, extended
duration claims. From the owner’s perspective, a contractor’s compensable claim is recognized
only to the extent that no “other” parallel float path becomes critical. This is determined by
removing owner-caused delays from the “critical path” until another path becomes critical. At that
point, the compensable delay claim is halted, and the other float paths are examined. If no owner-
caused delay can be found on other paths, a contractor-caused concurrent delay may exist which
denies the contractor compensation for the balance of the overall project delay period.
28
Id.

About the Author
Richard J. Long, P.E., is Founder and CEO of Long International, Inc.
Mr. Long has over 40 years of U.S. and international engineering, construction,
and management consulting experience involving construction contract disputes
analysis and resolution, arbitration and litigation support and expert testimony,
project management, engineering and construction management, cost and
schedule control, and process engineering. As an internationally recognized
expert in the analysis and resolution of complex construction disputes for over
30 years, Mr. Long has served as the lead expert on over 300 projects having
claims ranging in size from US $100,000 to over US $2 billion. He has
presented and published numerous articles on the subjects of claims analysis,
entitlement issues, CPM schedule and damages analyses, cumulative impact
claims, and claims prevention. Mr. Long earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University
of Pittsburgh in 1970 and an M.S. in Chemical and Petroleum Refining Engineering from the Colorado
School of Mines in 1974. Mr. Long is based in Littleton, Colorado and can be contacted at (303) 972-2443
and rlong@long-intl.com.

As Built But For Schedule Delay Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

As Built But For Schedule Delay Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Richard J. Long, P.E.

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc.

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. i

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 1

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 2

 Why the application of the ABBF Schedule Delay Analysis methodology is

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 3

[O]ne of the arguments frequently encountered is the issue of hindsight pricing of

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 4

It is a common misconception in the construction industry that if the contractor is entitled to an

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 5

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 6

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 7

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 8

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 9

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 10

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 11

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 12

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 13

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 14

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 15

b. Concurrent with contractor-caused delays or other noncompensable but

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 16

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 17

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 18

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 19

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 20

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 21

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 22

Copyright © 2017 Long International, Inc. 23

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen